Patterico's Pontifications

11/9/2010

Stephen Hayes: Why Is Mark Levin Focused on Petty Personal Squabbles — And Getting the Facts Wrong in the Process?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:51 am



Stephen Hayes:

Mark Levin has posted some criticism of my Marco Rubio piece on his Facebook page. The story was a rather straightforward look at the Rubio campaign – from the inside. To the extent that his post is about anything at all, it seems to be a complaint that the piece fails to mention Levin’s endorsement of Rubio. It’s hard to understand why — in the face of trillion [dollar] deficits, growing national security threats and a president who seems ill-equipped to [deal] with either — Levin is focused on something so petty. But his distortions require a response.

Levin writes: “First, when did the Weekly Standard endorse Rubio? Second, the first nationally syndicated talk show to endorse Rubio was … mine.” First, for the few people other than Mark Levin who actually care about such things, Laura Ingraham endorsed Rubio before he did.

Hayes goes on to explain that the Weekly Standard doesn’t endorse candidates — but points to a host of favorable articles and statements about Rubio made by himself and others from the Weekly Standard.

I have a different question. I see commenters on sites like mine saying that we need to move past the whole O’Donnell/Castle controversy. And, it does seem to be getting a little old, huh? Yet there are demagogues like Levin, together with certain bloggers who are desperate to get Levin’s attention, who seem content to pick at this scab, with no signs of letting up. Do their readers and listeners tell them to move on? I see little evidence of that.

Why would they be focused on something so petty as who endorsed Rubio first? Because they’re playing the I’m a more authentic conservative than you game.

The second they tell you that it’s all about the issues and not about the personalities, that’s when you know it’s all about the personalities. Namely, about how they are better than Stephen Hayes, or John McCormack, or Jim Geraghty, or Ace of Spades, or me, or any of the other writers whom they have chosen to label inauthentic.

Conservatives ought to be able to disagree without being at each other’s throats. And it is possible. Michelle Malkin, for example, endorsed O’Donnell, but explicitly said that she was not throwing conservatives overboard for disagreeing with her. I felt the same way about Michelle: I thought the candidate she was endorsing was dishonest and highly unlikely to win, but I also know that Michelle is no dummy. She knew the flaws of her candidate going in, and chose to endorse her despite the fact that the candidate wasn’t perfect — because she thought there were sound reasons to do so. Michelle and I can emerge from something like that respecting each other. Someone like Mark Levin, who twists the facts and plays the authenticity game? Not so much.

By the way, the example of Michelle is a good example of why I get upset at people who declare that the Tea Party generally, or Sarah Palin specifically, exhibited poor judgment or somehow cost us seats. I think this is ludicrous. Regardless of the specific effect of “the Tea Party,” it is precisely the spirit of the Tea Party that swept Republicans into office at historic levels, and that is focused on the important things like controlling spending and rolling back government. Palin didn’t blindly endorse the most conservative candidate in every race (see: DeVore vs. Fiorina) — instead, she did precisely what I would do: she made a calculation about who was the best candidate who might win, and endorsed that candidate. The fact that she and I might come to different conclusions about different races doesn’t mean her judgment is fatally flawed, or that the Tea Party cost us seats. It just means that we disagreed. Republicans are allowed to do that. Conservatives are allowed to do that.

I’m sick of the “I’m a more authentic conservative than you” shtick. When will people start to tell those who play it to grow up? Nobody cares who endorsed Rubio first, Mark Levin. We care about controlling spending and returning to constitutional principles. If you disappeared from the airwaves tomorrow, we’d still manage to do that — even though some of us never wrote a book! This isn’t about you. It’s about doing what’s right for the country.

92 Responses to “Stephen Hayes: Why Is Mark Levin Focused on Petty Personal Squabbles — And Getting the Facts Wrong in the Process?”

  1. “Why Is Mark Levin Focused on Petty Personal Squabbles — And Getting the Facts Wrong in the Process?

    ‘Cause that’s … what … he … does?

    Christoph (8ec277)

  2. Actually, Levin is a smart guy. But he believes the hype that others have heaped upon him (“The Great One”).

    Commenter nk will tell you about the Greeks and hubris.

    I think that prideful people can become a caricature of themselves, and sometimes even become the things that they claim to hate.

    Eric Blair (ad3ef3)

  3. I can’t get past his voice which manages to sound both whining and haranguing at the same time. I am puzzled why he gets so much respect from other co-politicals.

    marc (78cfd6)

  4. Hayes concluded:

    I do not, however, regret leaving Mark Levin out of the piece. I say that not because he routinely misrepresents my views, and those of other TWS contributors, or because I find it odd that he seems to believe it was his October 2009 endorsement that really made the difference for Marco Rubio.

    My reason for leaving Levin out is much simpler: In our many hours of casual conversation and sit-down interviews, Marco Rubio never mentioned him.

    aunursa (69b3db)

  5. I endorsed Rubio first.

    JD (97a58b)

  6. I’ve heard Levin’s radio program and I can take about a half hour of it before changing the channel. He just doesn’t sound like a smart guy.

    Mike K (568408)

  7. I’ve heard Levin’s radio program and I can take about a half hour of it before changing the channel. He just doesn’t sound like a smart guy.

    I hate when he has a guest on and says, “You’re a lawyer like myself … lawyer to lawyer … .”

    Do lawyers who haven’t practiced much law and got their license late have to draw attention to the fact that, yes, they also passed the bar?

    It seems insecure to me. Like, “Look, I’m smart too! I’m not just a radio guy, a good speaker. I’m a legal mind … .”

    Christoph (8ec277)

  8. Personally, I love Levin but he gets carried away sometimes. Beck got in his head a while back and he hasn’t been quite the same.

    Chris (6b0332)

  9. I tend to be practical when it comes to voting. I was in the camp for Castle because I thought 50% good votes was better than zero. In the back of my mind though was this thought: How do you honestly vote for someone whom you don’t have faith in and whose values you don’t generally accept? Whether she was electable or not, the base in Delaware believed in her values whether or not she was a good representative of them. I think I understand those who voted for her: they wanted somebody who represented them and probably resented all the folks who kept telling them who to vote for who didn’t live there. I’m sympathetic to those people because I liked O’Donnell’s stated values better than Castle’s.

    The thing I felt was unpardonable though was all the O’Donnell critics who kept blasting her AFTER the primary. Yes, she looked like she should lose and they went on a silly self fulfilling prophecy binge. Once the primary was over, if they were serious about having a conservative in there no matter how flawed, they should have rallied around her and been constructive about it.

    The real reason O’Donnell lost? Her no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather. That’s why. :)

    Jeff M (0204be)

  10. I don’t care who is an “authentic” conservative and I don’t listen to Levin. But I’m willing to play the game. And, in this conservative’s opinion, anybody (which may or may not include Levin, I have no idea) who told us to support O’Donnell, Miller, Angle and Buck needs to STFU. Also, anybody (and, again, I have no idea who this applies to) who told us to support Specter, Crist, and Bennett needs to STFU. Everybody else is welcome to debate. Again, in this conservative’s opinion.

    A.S. (23bc66)

  11. “The thing I felt was unpardonable though was all the O’Donnell critics who kept blasting her AFTER the primary. … if they were serious about having a conservative in there no matter how flawed … .”

    No, I’ve got some standards. She didn’t meet those. That’s the point.

    Besides, you probably missed the part where her former campaign manager said she didn’t give a damn about conservative principles and was just in it for what she could financially gain. This seems to match half of what we know about Christine O’Donnell’s life, wanting to “make” money the easy way. By suing conservative organizations on ridiculous trumped up overblown charges, by getting former boyfriends to bail her out of her housing difficulties, by lying about her educational background (and thus defrauding any potential ’employers’ — as if! — and voters).

    And I agree with Ace of Spades: A full accounting of her election contributions and what she’s done with them, please.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  12. Facts are stubbon things – the Tea Party was on the whole a net positive for the GOP in this election cycle. Anything else is just bloviations.

    Dmac (498ece)

  13. “are” just.

    Dmac (498ece)

  14. “Facts are stubbon things – the Tea Party was on the whole a net positive for the GOP in this election cycle. Anything else is just bloviations.”

    No. That’s ridiculous.

    Just because something is a net positive, doesn’t mean you don’t look at problems with it and see the mistakes what were made and how they can be improved.

    It is self-serving in the extreme for Tea Partiers to say any criticism of the movement is bloviating and thus should be dismissed. A lot of Tea Partier supporters would realize that’s stupid.

    It’s like saying Republicans can’t critcize any Republican Party or GOP candidate actions … or a sports fan or coach shouldn’t critique any plays made that cost their team points during a victory.

    It’s nonsense.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  15. Dmac – sometimes someone could say the sky is blue, and a sanctimonious prig would start wailing about beinding light and how you stupid immoral conservatives are torture lovers who support witches.

    JD (306f5d)

  16. You look objectively at your side’s mistakes after a victory, including failings of any people on your side, so as to ensure Victory next time, and the biggest Victory possible.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  17. Don’t look at me, I can’t stand Levin. I can’t stand his schtick and I can’t stand his voice.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. I used to like Levin. Never much liked his voice, but he did some grade A ridiculing, and I tell ya, that stuff warms my heart.

    But he’s not someone who is really particular on where he gets his facts.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  19. Facts are stubbon things – the Tea Party was on the whole a net positive for the GOP in this election cycle. Anything else is just bloviations.

    Comment by Dmac

    Absolutely. Some people want to pretend otherwise, but this ought to be obvious.

    And it was suboptimal. Anyone seriously angry we didn’t have every candidate and pundit act perfectly needs to check in to an asylum… what the GOP got in 2010 was near the best we could ever hope for and we should be pleased.

    A lot of loudmouths try to jump on whatever wind is blowing to prove how superior they are. Levin and Keith both. Christoph is nowhere near as deluded as ‘The Great One’, but it’s the same disease. One of the symptoms is that they don’t bother to get facts right and their conclusions are often “that’s why you are not as good as me.”

    Hayes nails Levin’s real problem. He’s seeing his country face serious problems, and is obsessed with his own ego instead. It’s off putting to patriots who don’t enjoy boasting about themselves and are interested in politics because of greater issues than solving someone’s psychological inadequacy.

    It’s no surprise that the people who really, really love Levin also seem to have psychological problems. I’m not naming names on this, but test my hypo in the future and you’ll see what I mean.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  20. A.S., you’re welcome.

    Icy Texan (5cbf21)

  21. BTW, my psychological analysis was not meant to cover Christoph, who cross posted while I was typing.

    I think Christoph is quite similar to Levin, but I didn’t think they shared a world-view.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  22. you know, I can’t think of a single time in my life where i even cared overly much about an endorsement.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  23. ==Do their readers and listeners tell them to move on? I see little evidence of that==

    Over time nearly all blogs and websites become unique communities of people who find that they like discussing and exploring some of the same topics– and as is the case here on Patterico, enjoy interacting with and learning from the commenters they see on a regular basis. (Hi Dana, DMAC, JD, DRJ, Daleyrocks, Dustin, Happy, Aaron, Eric, Brother, and many others). This is really no different than the process one uses to pick real life friends. And I honestly don’t think this suggests that people who vet and then concentrate on a few favorite blogs are lazy or closed minded as much as it shows them trying to be stewards of their time and emotional resources.

    Most busy and relatively sane people simply do not have the time to cruise the net to engage and challenge those on blogs they have less in common with, constantly disagree with, or where the blog owner’s singular focus, temperament, or approach to deleting comments has morphed to suit the blog’s “philosophy” exclusively. Frankly, it just ain’t worth the effort. Levin’s and Riehl’s most ardent regulars, for example, mostly like what they are getting so don’t challenge or wish to move on from certain topics. Others of us don’t bother to go there anymore because we find blog wars to be nonproductive and uninteresting.

    elissa (0f6baa)

  24. you know, I can’t think of a single time in my life where i even cared overly much about an endorsement.

    but the sort of people who call Levin ‘the great one’ would absolutely care.

    And it does serve the function of getting people to pay attention. Palin endorsing O’donnell turned the primary on its head. Ace was noting he didn’t promote McMahon’s opponent (whose name escapes me) until he saw Coulter support him (giving him cover from purists).

    It really does seem like a stupid mess of competing egos. Rubio is not going to keep the purists happy, even though he is exceptional. Palin didn’t really know anything about O’Donnell except that she didn’t vote for cap and trade.

    It’s 2010, and there is a better way. I think a spreadsheet that shows Republican primary candidates, ranks them per state based on how conservative they are, and draws a thick black line separating those who have a chance of winning (poll within 6-7 points of the likely democrat) would work much better. It could have links to each candidate’s website.

    I think the RNC should limit its involvement in our primaries to this sort of information system. It could even insist that registered candidates answer a long questionnaire, and allow users like me to do the same, so the ‘more conservative’ ranking is tailored to my specific ideas.

    Some of these leaders are thinking specifically about who can actually win the race, and there’s nothing wrong with including that. But I think they would get what they want, and so would I, if this analysis was done in the open by the whole party.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  25. “you know, I can’t think of a single time in my life where i even cared overly much about an endorsement.”

    It can be really helpful if you want to get a date with a friend of a friend.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  26. Levin’s and Riehl’s most ardent regulars, for example, mostly like what they are getting so don’t challenge or wish to move on from certain topics.

    That’s right.

    I have tried to comment on both and it hasn’t been pretty. I still do occasionally. The second time I noted that O’Donnell is probably not going to win her contest, there was a chorus of “tell me this guy’s IP address so we can get all the blogs to prove he’s a democrat!!!”

    Easier to just admit I don’t fit in with that niche. I also don’t really want blog commenters to uniformly agree… yet here I am, commenting on a blog where I usually agree with the bloggers.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  27. It’s like saying Republicans can’t critcize any Republican Party or GOP candidate actions … or a sports fan or coach shouldn’t critique any plays made that cost their team points during a victory.

    It’s nonsense.

    Comment by Christoph

    Like you, I’m for setting standards. Did she ever cheat in law school or was she ever caught plagiarizing a paper that was assigned ?

    Did she ever plagiarize another successful politician, even in another country, to the extent of falsifying her own biography to correspond to that other politician’s biography ? Even to giving speeches that were verbatim copies ?

    If she didn’t, then she is obviously unqualified because those are the standards set by the previous occupant of that seat for 26 years.

    Mike K (568408)

  28. I got banned from Red State almost immediately.

    How, and why, I got banned was actually kind of funny.

    Red State had made a point of saying that no one supporting Ron Paul would be able to express support of Ron Paul at that time because they were tired of him.

    I don’t like Paul much. I have qualms about his racial views.

    So I made a satirical and sarcastic comment critical of Paul and the dummies running Red State couldn’t figure it out. Boom. Banned instantly for supporting Ron Paul.

    Even though I didn’t.

    Red State, as many others have pointed out, is run like a mini-Stalinist education camp. It is better to go along.

    This place, AoSHQ, and others at least allow actually contrary points of view.

    As long as you don’t say, “Hear, hear!” to someone Patterico disagrees with. That really sets him off.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  29. I see nothing substantive to except in this post.

    Unless, of course, it is not intended to be your last word on the subject.

    Now, about the insane asylum in which you reside..

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  30. That’s a red herring, Mike K.

    So you’re saying as long as a candidate is no more ethically challenged than Joseph Biden, the candidate should be good enough for Republican voters?

    Christoph (8ec277)

  31. At last! The voice ^^^ of sanity.

    Icy Texan (5cbf21)

  32. Make that voices

    Icy Texan (5cbf21)

  33. Levin’s not as authentic as me. He endorsed Rubio in Oct 2009 (from above, I’m not looking if it’s true or not). That’s nice, I moved to Florida in August of 2009, just to vote for Rubio.

    Well, that or because my wife got relocated. Either way, I voted for Rubio. Twice! Try again Little Levin.

    Darin H (c335c2)

  34. Christoph, that’s a misstatement of RedState’s Ron Paul policy. The policy was that no one who had joined in the last 6 months could shill for Paul. I could have gone on all day long about Paul since I had 4 years at the site by then, but I didn’t because there were plenty of annoying “Ron Paul is teh Only True Conservative” posts already. If you thought you were banned wrongly, you should have contacted someone.

    Darin H (c335c2)

  35. Darin, he wasn’t banned wrongly. He was trying to stir up a huge mess.

    They banned him because he was trolling. He is confused, thinking he was banned in error and it’s OK to troll if you agree with the blogger.

    Just as he’s confused on this blog when he will make an over-the-top condemnation of O’Donnell supporters… it’s meant to be flamebait, and he’s not doing it to seriously discuss anything. As he said, he does this because it amuses him. I’d ban him for that, too.

    It’s not fair to people who want an honest discussion to let trolls throw flamebait around. I suspect Christoph has been banned many times from many places and always thinks he’s the victim because his humor was misunderstood.

    I also bet RedState realized he was kidding and just wanted to avoid thread after thread of trolling. At any rate, Christoph already explained that he broke the rule they had, and he seems to think the rule shouldn’t apply to his special cleverness (even though it’s dull youtube level flamebait).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  36. I said “at the time”, Darin H, I was speaking generally. I’m not an expert in the finer details of the ins and outs of Red State’s policies on who can or cannot offer their support of a Republican Presidential candidate and congressman.

    I don’t even like Paul, but it certainly supports my view that Red State is Stalinist to have such a policy.

    And I did contact someone. I pointed out how my comment was actually a criticism of Paul, and a pretty strong one. Didn’t make a difference. They couldn’t be bothered.

    Red State sucks.

    “Christoph already explained that he broke the rule they had”

    No, I didn’t explain that, dummy. I said I was criticizing Paul and that they weren’t bright enough to get it.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  37. Yes, but Malkin still feels the need to take gratuitous swipes at Karl Rove every chance she gets.

    I don’t think the Tea Party as a movement made bad choices, but I do think that certain high profile and ambitious conservatives with their own agendas pushed certain people they knew were long shots at best.

    That would not have been such a bad thing, if they did not insist that everyone else go along with them. For instance, some of those people who are saying that some of the Tea Party candidates were not good enough, might not be saying some of these things if they had not been called RINOs, establishment toadys, traitors, and God knows what else for supporting the other candidate.

    So it works both ways.

    Terrye (2e6779)

  38. I don’t think the Tea Party as a movement made bad choices, but I do think that certain high profile and ambitious conservatives with their own agendas pushed certain people they knew were long shots at best.

    That would not have been such a bad thing, if they did not insist that everyone else go along with them. For instance, some of those people who are saying that some of the Tea Party candidates were not good enough, might not be saying some of these things if they had not been called RINOs, establishment toadys, traitors, and God knows what else for supporting the other candidate.

    So it works both ways.

    Bingo.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  39. For example, Aceofspades will ban you for racism. Even though most of the people banned for this were sarcastically expressing racism.

    They think they are so clever about it the rule shouldn’t apply to them, but the point isn’t to keep racists out of threads so much as to keep threads free from a certain kind of ugliness.

    Redstate wanted to leave unserious Ron Paul screeching out of threads, so they could discuss other things. Christoph thought screeching in jest was OK because he’s special. Much as Mark Levin’s favorite catchphrase is ‘my principles are not negotiable’, but he thinks that rule doesn’t apply when he’s lying about some ‘RINO’, or refusing to correct obvious errors.

    The people who think the rules shouldn’t apply to them constructed that idea because they keep running afoul of the rules.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  40. Malkin still feels the need to take gratuitous swipes at Karl Rove every chance she gets.

    Yep, that’s getting awfully old.

    Karl Rove helped George W Bush administer the government. While he didn’t react to everything perfectly, he ran a much smoother operation than we have today. That wasn’t easy, and Rove deserves more respect. He’s not a leader so much as a sober advisor… even a pessimist. I just don’t get why people are so angry with him.

    If they wanted Rove’s support so bad, they should blame the people who got so nasty in the DE primary with the ‘is he a gay adulterer?’ and ‘he voted for obamacare and stimulus’ and ‘he impeached Bush!’ nonsense.

    Malkin should be above this sniping, but she isn’t.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  41. So I made a satirical and sarcastic comment critical of Paul

    In other words, you made a comment that appeared to support him, but you were kidding.

    You say

    “Christoph already explained that he broke the rule they had”

    No, I didn’t explain that, dummy. I said I was criticizing Paul and that they weren’t bright enough to get it.

    I know you think you’re really smart, Christoph, and people who don’t see things they way you do aren’t bright or honorable. That’s a major character defect you’ve got.

    You have actually proven you broke their rules. A comment pretend-supporting Ron Paul that you think is the height of humor is really unproductive flamebait. And I suspect your ‘cleverness’ was understood and dismissed because it wasn’t clever.

    You are consistently unable to understand anyone’s argument. You consistently imply the most basic concepts are complicated when we’re actually moving beyond them to other topics (that you’re usually ignoring).

    Usually when people show that kind of simplicity, they think they are actually the brightest guy in the room.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  42. At a loss why Levin insists this is all somehow about him.It is or should be about conservative ideals.Problem under Bush II is people like Levin were too often too accomdating to the fiscal profligacy because the President was a Republican, and those ideals took a backseat.

    Spending time and energy bitching about other radio hosts or media outlets gets old fast. It’s understandable in the talk radio business you are selling yourself 24/7,and cannot fault a guy for making a buck nor fault anyone for liking or disliking others, be they competitors or other media people. But harping on such things is a waste of time. I find most of these talkers tedious after about a half hour,but the tedium arrives much sooner once any host starts badmouthing another host.

    The important thing is Rubio, a real conservative with a bright future, won.We want to be part of something positive, as Rubio was.

    There’s also a lesson there to Levin and Savage; anger will only take you so far in any career, be it talk radio or politics. Bob Grant was far and away the best radio host I have ever heard, but his anger and sardonic wit does not translate to a broader audience. Their careers are not those of Hannity or Beck because nobody wants to deal with negativity all the time, no matter how awful things may be.

    Bugg (4e0dda)

  43. There’s also a lesson there to Levin and Savage; anger will only take you so far in any career, be it talk radio or politics.

    Rubio beat the odds handily because he understood something about politics that the screechers don’t get. A lot of people are more concerned with seeing an honorable, bright, good candidate, and are a bit unsure of solutions to problems like funding Social Security or energy exploration. This is the politics part of politics. Rubio expressed his love for our country and our people repeatedly in a very compelling way, and people who are unsure of the issues decide to trust someone who loves this country.

    Some of these problems Levin talks are are awful and make informed people very frustrated, but there is no better argument, for many voters, than being honorable and competent. Angry purists are often neither.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. “Problem under Bush II is people like Levin were too often too accomdating to the fiscal profligacy because the President was a Republican…”

    I hear that.

    However…in 2000 I refused to vote for George Bush because I thought (correctly) that he was way too liberal.

    By doing that, I almost got Al Gore elected, and I vowed never to make that mistake again.

    Straight Republican ticket in 2010, and I’ll live with the fact that not all Republicans are going to be as right wing as I want them to be.

    George Bush II bad, Al Gore ten thousand times worse.

    Remember that when you’re voting.

    Dave Surls (81613b)

  45. Levin was a behind-the-scenes adviser to both Rush and Hannity for years before they helped him get his own show. Mark’s smart, but the problem is he doesn’t have Rush’s sense of humor, nor Hannity’s ability to be civil to the people he disagrees with. So he tries basically to do an updated version of the old Bob Grant show, but scatter shoots against targets in almost every ideological direction.

    John (a4c2a4)

  46. Dave-

    Voted for Bush both times only on a lesser evils basis.Same goes for McSame.

    Would demand from our current GOP officeholders they look at this and take it to heart-

    http://michellemalkin.com/2010/11/09/bush-nostalgia-lets-not-get-carried-away-ok/

    We now have a President trying to justify a $13 trillion debt because Bush left us all an $8 trllion debt. I don’t want my sons to have no future because any president did these kinds of things.

    Bugg (4e0dda)

  47. “Voted for Bush both times only on a lesser evils basis.Same goes for McSame.”

    Good.

    The next time I feel like doing something stupid, like voting for a third party candidate as a protest vote in a close election, I’m going to call you and make you talk me out of it.

    😉

    Dave Surls (81613b)

  48. The thing I felt was unpardonable though was all the O’Donnell critics who kept blasting her AFTER the primary. Yes, she looked like she should lose and they went on a silly self fulfilling prophecy binge. Once the primary was over, if they were serious about having a conservative in there no matter how flawed, they should have rallied around her and been constructive about it.

    The real reason O’Donnell lost? Her no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather. That’s why. :)

    Comment by Jeff M — 11/9/2010 @ 7:39 am

    She kept blasting them too. In emails, on TV..O’Donnell did everything she could to keep that fight alive.

    As for the people voting for her in a primary, they did so not just because they thought she represented them but because some very high profile conservatives went into Delaware and campaigned for her and because the Tea Party Express supported her. This is in a state where O’Donnell had actually done a write in after losing a primary before. If the local Republicans had been that upset with Castle it would have been better to primary him earlier with someone else..instead they supported him for years and then dumped in for a sure loser.

    As for that being who they wanted, fine..Maes won with Tea Party support in Colorado and it was no time before they abandoned him because he had not been properly vetted. I think the same sort of thing happened here.

    But if O’Donnell really wants people to stop talking about her, then maybe she should get off TV and stop blaming the GOP and the RNC and the NRSC for her defeat.

    Terrye (7379d2)

  49. Q: Why Is Mark Levin Focused on Petty Personal Squabbles — And Getting the Facts Wrong in the Process?

    A: He is a lawyer.

    Torquemada (a8a9b2)

  50. #

    “Problem under Bush II is people like Levin were too often too accomdating to the fiscal profligacy because the President was a Republican…”

    I hear that.

    However…in 2000 I refused to vote for George Bush because I thought (correctly) that he was way too liberal.

    By doing that, I almost got Al Gore elected, and I vowed never to make that mistake again.

    Straight Republican ticket in 2010, and I’ll live with the fact that not all Republicans are going to be as right wing as I want them to be.

    George Bush II bad, Al Gore ten thousand times worse.

    Remember that when you’re voting.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 11/9/2010 @ 10:54 am

    What about Reagan? He is the man who really made deficit spending acceptable. I don’t hear too many Bushbashers complaining about him.

    When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 the national deficit was $167 billion for that year. It was more than that in a month 4 years later.

    Now, if people who complain about this want to repeal Medicare Part D, which has been a lot less costly than expected…then they can call their lawmakers and demand that. They can tell all those senior citizens out there what a load they are to carry.

    But they won’t.

    Terrye (7379d2)

  51. Mister Levin, he’s a friend, always good to me. But I think maybe he go too far at times. I know he’s good in his heart but I say Mister Levin, you shouldn’t be so angry at your friends. The Weekly Standard they be good people, always good to ol’ Allen. And Rubio he is a shiny boy, me wisha’ the best to him.

    Allen West (0692b1)

  52. I’ve never been involved in, or participated in, a discussion of whether someone is “authentically” or “more” or “actually” a [whatever label] without eventually feeling like the conversation added nothing but carbon dioxide and entropy hastening the eventual heat death of the universe.

    That’s true for all instances of [label], including conservative, libertarian, feminist, nerd, cosplayer, Christian, Lakers fan, etc.

    Labels can be useful tools. Like pronouns. But when we spend too much time arguing about the labels rather than arguing about actual underlying principles, then we most closely resemble the people squabbling about pronouns (“you advance the patriarchy by saying ‘he’ rather than ‘s/he'” or ‘zhe’!!”). I care about freedom of expression and worship, free markets, maximization of individual liberty and reduction of government control, the rule of law and equality before it, personal responsibility, and individual conscience. I think that its a complete waste of time to discuss at length whether or not that makes me “authentically conservative” or not.

    Now, sometimes arguments that are complete wastes of time can be fun. Like, what percentage of superheroes can beat up Aquaman? (It’s 97.3%, and anyone who disagrees is not an authentic geek.) And I won’t throw the first stone about getting pulled into complete waste of time arguments because I get pulled into them all the time. Because I’m human and no better than anyone else.

    But we shouldn’t pretend that labels are substantive. Right?

    Ken (d7a549)

  53. Mister Levin, he’s a friend, always good to me. But I think maybe he go too far at times. I know he’s good in his heart but I say Mister Levin, you shouldn’t be so angry at your friends. The Weekly Standard they be good people, always good to ol’ Allen. And Rubio he is a shiny boy, me wisha’ the best to him.

    Comment by Allen West

    Another democrat basically calling Allen West the N-word.

    Why? Because he’s a black man who isn’t doing he was he’s been told to do.

    These racist democrats make Mark Levin look like a sweet cuddly puppy.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  54. I’ve only listened to Levin sporadically in the last year. It takes awhile to get used to his voice – the most radio unfriendly I’ve ever heard…….not in the universe of other radio hosts but in the entire universe! He’s the anti-James Earl Jones.

    That said, his rants at the Dems are highly entertaining. Won’t change anyone’s mind but he gives full throat to describing the absurdities the MSM won’t touch. He gets out there, but he’s no Michael Savage. And there’s no humor as with Rush. But I would recommend listening to him for his enthusiasm and edginess (though the red on red stuff I can’t stand, from both sides).

    While the red on red stuff is distasteful to me, it’s important to have your ideas challenged. So when Patrick is mixing it up with Levin or Goldstein I punch out like a kid hiding under the covers while his parents fight. And after the fight, like that kid, I’m loyal to both Mom and Dad, because both have something for me (if it helps I’ll call you, Dad, Patrick, and we’ll make Mark, Mom). In short, these red on red bashathons are necessary but distateful to me personally. So bash on, but in general I’ll wait for something more interesting to comment on.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  55. Indeed Dustin, its an offensive comment and I can only speculate on which of our scummier trolls made it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  56. Won’t change anyone’s mind

    Don’t be too sure, East Bay Jay.

    I think Keith Olbermann turns some centrists off, while convincing zero democrats because they came to him already hardened leftists.

    His rants are funny, but if some get the impression he isn’t honest, they may wonder if that’s because he’s wrong. I’m glad he’s out there anyway. It’s a pressure relief valve and it’s entertaining a lot of people.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  57. Ummmm, has “Allen West” ever heard Allen West speak? I highly doubt it because the last place one would ‘go’ with West is his speaking ability. He was a base commander for crying out loud. He surely gave speeches in front of thousands regularly. Humor only works when there’s a thread of truth. When there isn’t, it’s just embarassing.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  58. Great point, Jay.

    West is quite articulate.
    I wish every Republican was this clear and informed. I don’t mean in the Biden or Reid sense. He’s articulate without any democrat preconception that blacks are not normally articulate or clean.

    Pretending he sounds like a minstrel might amuse some democrats, but it probably embarrasses plenty of them, too.

    This is why Barry Goldwater didn’t think the CRA of 1964 was a good idea. He marched as an NAACP member and had every confidence that racists refusing to associate with whites will pay for their racist exercise of their 1st amendment rights.

    If you only hire the sort of people who will work for an all-white company, your company is going to be full of morons and go out of business.

    It’s this point where the democrats really gained traction by offering goodies to people who are much better off treated exactly the same as anyone else.

    To insist we treat minorities differently, forever, assumes inferiority and also assumes a hateful nation.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  59. Re: Mark Levin’s tizzy about “who did what with whom first” (though I think it applies to the whole Tea Party issue just as well):

    There is a quote by Reagan – “It’s amazing what you can get done when you don’t care who gets credit.” I’ve found it’s true pretty much every time it can be cited.

    Redhawke (ce1e22)

  60. I made a typo regarding Goldwater, of course.

    Consider his view, that a company staffed by people willing to work for an all-white business would be full of morons and pay for this. Such a company can’t compete with a company of whites like Goldwater and minorities hired in virtue of their talents.

    Democrats pretend the 1964 CRA was promoting Civil Rights, but that’s just what the name was. Your right to be a racist, or to refuse to associate with certain people, is a constitutional freedom. Keeping the government from controlling this matter is extremely important.

    Lawsuits based on discrimination have damaged a lot of businesses. There was a much better way to solve this problem, and Goldwater saw that because he was consistent on the issue of civil rights. He actually believed blacks like West were out there because he knew such people and wasn’t a racist.

    Instead of freedom, the democrats picked an extreme and used fear of that to gain tremendous power that went beyond the Constitution and launched many lawsuits for BS claims. It is much more difficult today to fire someone because you just don’t want them to work for you. You are guilty until proven innocent, instead of your business practices being decided by the free market.

    It’s like W defending abortion because the alternative is akin to forcing a young rape and incest victim in Alabama to bear her laughing rapist’s child. You can turn any legal proposition into such an extreme. But if you pay attention, W’s contempt for young women in Alabama seeps out just as his sockpuppet’s hatred of black men like West seeps out.

    They don’t really want this power to help those people… they want to use those people, whom they hate, to gain more power.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  61. I’m sorry I have a lot of respect for Hayes, but the Weekly Standard really became a pale copy of Politico, when it came to Christine, the ISI lawsuit, the former staffers who came out of nowhere, I’ve seen this story before, They almost forgot that her rival is a person whose views are antithetical to practically any modern constitutional understanding, who has abused his power, not metaphorically but actually, who is a party to the now erstwhile cap n trade scam.

    justin cord (82637e)

  62. Yeah, the “Allen West” sock puppet needs clean up. Dude – bad form.

    Back to the topic at hand…I’m sick to death of O’Donnell. GAH! Then she starts lobbing the blame darts.

    If the GOP really wants to make a run at governing they will need to wear their big boy and girl panties and assess and dissect their wins and losses with out all this boneheaded tomfoolery. I am so not kidding.

    Levin – It’s old. Move on.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  63. “West is quite articulate.”

    I had to check whether this came from one of our parody commenters.

    imdw (6b1014)

  64. According to the leftists like dimwit and oliver willis, it is racist to compliment west for beinf articulate. Calling them clean and articulate is fine, so long as he doesn’t have a negro dialect. Th left’s standards are … fluid.

    JD (306f5d)

  65. I had to check whether this came from one of our parody commenters.

    Comment by imdw

    Forgive me for not being too worried about someone who laughs at child rape fantasies.

    West is articulate, and yes, I say that in reference to the racist democrats who think this is some kind of earth shaking revelation for a black man to be intelligent.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  66. Did anyone doubt the diversity of islamophobia?

    imdw (fb8a08)

  67. Hush, moron.

    JD (85b089)

  68. “Consider his view, that a company staffed by people willing to work for an all-white business would be full of morons and pay for this. ”

    The constitution was written by an all-white body. Is this a problem?

    imdw (53b665)

  69. Did anyone doubt that West being elected would usher in the same tired democrat racism?

    People pretending he talks like a minstrel? People pretending it’s so unreasonable to say his articulate comments are what they are, because he’s black?

    No doubt, whatsoever, imdw is a white democrat. Probably significantly overweight and of very low status, which was the original reason behind white democrats pretending all blacks are inferior.

    “islamaphobia” he said, referring to what? West goes over the history. It’s problematic. It’s something we’re not allowed to say in PC circles, but there are some basic incompatibilities between certain Islamic ideas and our society.

    Other religions have the same problem, and they were resolved the way I hope Muslims resolve them. I’ve seen that this is possible to some extent.

    imdw would just shut down the discussion because he senses the notion of individual responsibility defeating identify politics. Or maybe he doesn’t and felt like being obnoxious. Anyhow, he has no response to West but snark.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  70. The constitution was written by an all-white body. Is this a problem?

    Comment by imdw

    You missed my point entirely, but that is the typical slur from democrats who actually think a company today, run by people who refused to hire blacks, would be similar in quality to the founding fathers.

    It wouldn’t. I wouldn’t shop there. Smart and effective whites wouldn’t work there. That company would suck and fail. imdw’s argument against the 1st amendment is so tired and disproven.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  71. I mean, look how islamophobia brings us together: you linked to a video of allen west — a black man — posted by the BNP, a racist organization that until recently forbade black people from joining (they are, as you might say “full of morons”).

    imdw (53b665)

  72. “It wouldn’t. I wouldn’t shop there. Smart and effective whites wouldn’t work there. That company would suck and fail”

    So you prefer more the Jesse Jackson boycott method of civil rights work?

    imdw (53b665)

  73. “imdw would just shut down the discussion because he senses the notion of individual responsibility defeating identify politics.”

    Do you really see what this guy says about islam and think he’s defeating ‘identity politics’ ? The guy is just peddling a new identity for you to hate!

    imdw (53b665)

  74. Dimwit just is getting its daily RACIST name calling out of the way. Anything beyond mockery and scorn is more than it deserves.

    JD (306f5d)

  75. You’re saying describing the BNP as racist is just namecalling? That’s pretty much what they are.

    imdw (043f60)

  76. “It wouldn’t. I wouldn’t shop there. Smart and effective whites wouldn’t work there. That company would suck and fail”

    So you prefer more the Jesse Jackson boycott method of civil rights work?

    Comment by imdw

    Do I prefer people refusing to do business with racists to the federal law forcing people to document why they terminate people?

    Of course. Don’t you? I want to know who the racists are. Don’t you? I see no problem with a boycott. Jackson is a shrill example who doesn’t always handle his activities honestly. I recall he demanded money from one organization that promises a large donation if they could audit his coalition’s books… and Jackson disappeared.

    Do you think a restaurant could open today, post a ‘whites only’ sign, and stay in business? The extreme the 1964 CRA purports to stop isn’t actually a problem. It’s an extreme meant to scare people into giving the government tremendous power, and it’s obviously unconstitutional. I realize Al Gore Sr and Robert Byrd and Harry Reid and Joe Biden would love to have an all-white restaurant, and the nation was bound to have to face that problem one way or the other. I would have preferred this fight happen on the individual level… instead, we have race baiters like you pretending the democrats are protecting us from themselves.

    Do you really see what this guy says about islam and think he’s defeating ‘identity politics’ ? The guy is just peddling a new identity for you to hate!

    I’m sure you would prefer this is what West is doing, insisting we hate all Muslims and minorities, etc. But it isn’t what he’s doing.

    Islam has certain aspects that aren’t compatible with modern society. The Islamofascists actually have to be defeated, and it’s not prejudice to say so or discuss the history of it.

    I have no idea what BNP is. Other than a red herring. It doesn’t appear you’re keeping up, but rather just repeating your proclamation without arguing it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  77. Anything beyond mockery and scorn is more than it deserves.

    Comment by JD

    That’s true. This isn’t about what imdw or West’s racist detractors deserve.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  78. Dustin, let it go, he’s a certifiable nitwit, Colonel West is so far above what this moron is used to, he can’t do anything but jeer

    justin cord (82637e)

  79. Actually he’s a moron of the first order, he’s not even familiar enough with the latest talking point
    on the English Defense League, that group out of confrontation with Islamists, in the Leeds area

    justin cord (82637e)

  80. “Do you think a restaurant could open today, post a ‘whites only’ sign, and stay in business? ”

    I think the civil rights act aims to fix problems besides that.

    “The Islamofascists actually have to be defeated, and it’s not prejudice to say so or discuss the history of it.”

    See, West talks about Islam, not “the islamofascists.”

    “I have no idea what BNP is. ”

    I guessed that. Now you know that they’re a racist “bunch of morons” with a youtube account that you linked to.

    imdw (a544ba)

  81. Well, it’s just a youtube video of West speaking quite clearly. It’s the first result for his name.

    I don’t really know or care about your claims about who posted it, but there are a lot of kooks on the internet, you being a good example.

    You have made the same claim about West many times without actually trying to argue this claim.

    You completely missed my point re the CRA 1964. You are wrong to say the act was aimed at leading to a society that chooses against racism. If you were any more dense you would be mined and put on an engagement ring.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  82. “I don’t really know or care about your claims about who posted it, but there are a lot of kooks on the internet, you being a good example.”

    They’re a political party in Britain. I think ‘kook’ is being nice to them. They’re racist peddlers of xenophobic identity politics.

    “You are wrong to say the act was aimed at leading to a society that chooses against racism. I

    I said it wasn’t just about “whites only” signs.

    imdw (043f60)

  83. “I don’t really know or care about your claims about who posted it, but there are a lot of kooks on the internet, you being a good example.”

    They’re a political party in Britain. I think ‘kook’ is being nice to them. They’re racist peddlers of xenophobic identity politics.

    “You completely missed my point re the CRA 1964.”

    I especially liked the part where the dixiecrats that voted with Goldwater were for civil rights.

    “You are wrong to say the act was aimed at leading to a society that chooses against racism.

    I said it wasn’t just about “whites only” signs.

    imdw (8a8ced)

  84. It revels in it’s idiocy, Dustin. Just like epwj.

    JD (c8c1d2)

  85. I especially liked the part where the dixiecrats that voted with Goldwater were for civil rights.

    What part?

    Obviously, no part. You made that up.

    It’s true, a lot of racists also opposed the CRA of 1964, but you attacked Goldwater for doing so when it’s quite clear he was a powerful supporter of black equality and the civil rights the 1864 CRA violates.

    You can pretend this isn’t clear because you are incredibly hateful.

    JD’s right. You’re being idiotic.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  86. I can’t see what I’m typing, so I make a lot of amazing typos. Today’s been a pretty bad day because the trolls are particularly angry lately.

    imdw, prepare to continue getting angry as West takes prominent roles over the next many years.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  87. “Obviously, no part. You made that up.”

    You said that Goldwater voting against the CRA was him being on the side of civil rights.

    “imdw, prepare to continue getting angry as West takes prominent roles over the next many years.”

    I’ve gotten used to the growing power of islamophobia in this country. It’s one of the saddest things about Bush’s departure.

    imdw (043f60)

  88. To #3: Mark Levin’s voice sounds like a buzz saw with adenoids.

    the friendly grizzly (2f59a6)

  89. Haven’t decided on how I feel about the Hayes vs Levin spat. I catch Hayes on Fox regularly and Levin every night on the way home from work. Which means I hear them for roughly equal amounts of time, because the car part is a really short commute. Hayes frequently offers insightful comments, but is clearly libertarian. Levin is more paleo, though probably gets labeled neo because of his Jewish background and arguments for strong national defense. Of the two, I’m closer to Levin philosophically than I am to Hayes.

    That being said, whoever agrees with the statements that “people like Levin gave Bush a pass on fiscal…” clearly have never, ever, under any circumstance listened to his show. Olbermann perhaps, but not Levin. I’d say about every third night during the W’s tenure Mark went on a rant about some stupid Republican spending program Bush was supporting.

    The_Gadfly (45ce15)

  90. He actually sounds like fmr. Indiana Congressman and
    9/11 commissioner,Tim Roemer, and I agree, Levin, as well as Ingraham, Bruce, et al, gave Bush hell
    for ‘compassionate conservative’ measures like Medicare Part D

    justin cord (82637e)

  91. “‘compassionate conservative’ measures like Medicare Part D”

    This is easier to understand once you see it as corporate welfare.

    imdw (14df54)

  92. The “purer conservative than thou” folks are all pushing for more market share. They latched on to the Tea Party movement, elbowed their way to the front of the parade and pretend they led it.

    They all hope this will lead to prominence for them, and eventually money and/or power, too, for many. And the only way to get there is to knock off everyone who disagrees with their personal issue score card in the slightest.

    It’s like Stalin’s purges, though. In the beginning there really were some people who were a threat to his power, but after they were liquidated, he still needed enemies as an excuse for his extreme measures, so the bar was lowered until the point the slightest lack of enthusiasm for his leadership or decisions was enough to send you to the Gulag at the least. That’s what these self-appointed “Keepers of the Faith” are doing – they don’t care about an 85 lifetime ACU rating, you were on the wrong side of XYZ bill, you dirty RINO! Off with his head!

    Don’t let the lunatic fringe take over the asylum just yet. Even Stalin knew he needed close to absolute power before he began the purges to consolidate it.

    Estragon (ec6a4b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5096 secs.